Conversation Analysis

[Avery Andrews 032698]

I've been doing something about my intention to learn more about
`Conversation Analysis' by going to a class in it that's being
given this semester at a manageable time, so here are some
thoughts/observation.

CA is an approach to the study of language developed by some
sociologists (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson are maybe the original
three big names) interested in interaction; one pillar of the
approach is to record natural interactions & study them in minute
details; experimentation is held to be unsound because the subjects
are presumed smart enough to be know they are being tested, and this
will warp the results (if you want to know what's going on in natural
conversation, what you have to look at is natural conversation, not
something different, such as talk-in-the-investigator's-laboratory).
Of course it's also unethical to record people without their knowledge;
the way around this is to make arrangements to the effect that there
will be some recording sometimes, but not say exactly when; then play
the actual recordings back to the subjects to make sure there's nothing
objectionable on them (I suspect privately that at least some serious
investigators make some secret recordings anyway, just to be sure!.)
Anyway, it seems to be the case that people forget that they're being
recorded pretty quickly, so that this doesn't have much of an effect on
the results>. Well there's the methodology. Now for some findings.

One is that in a wide range of conversational situations, there is an
extreme intolerance of periods of silence. If you meet with a colleage
in the hall, for example, and the conversation runs out of steam, you
quickly feel uncomfortable & either say someting more or come up with
a reason to break off the interaction. Likewise if the conversation
lags at the dinner table, people get pretty uncomfortable (in this
situation, you can't manufacture an excuse to bail). There are of
course other situations where constant talk isn't required (during sex,
or a long car-trip with friends); it would be useful to have a good
characterization of the ones where it is vs. the ones where it isn't.
I'll hand-wave at this issue by calling the situations requiring
continuous talk as `conversational situations'.

In a conversational situation, there seems to be a strong reference for
`perceiving somebody to be talking', it doesn't matter who: the rules
for ordinary conversation usually don't prescribe any particular person
to be the speaker (although there are local exceptions, as when somebody
asks somebody a question, then the ask-ee is supposed to respond). What
seems to happen is that when somebody finishes a `turn' (stops talking),
there may or may not be a short period of silence, but in
English-speaking culture, if it's longer than about a second, it gets
uncomfortable, and there seems to be a `problem' (`problem' seems to be
virtually a techninal term; I haven't figured out what it really means,
something to do with conflicting reference levels would be my guess).
The OK silence period varies between cultures; it is for example longer
in the country than in the city, which leads to city people thinking
that country people are stupid or sullen, since they don't answer
questions within the time expected by the city people, so that the
city folk think the country folk either don't know the answer or don't
want to provide it).

So it looks like there might be a `silence-perceiver' feeding into a
leaky integrator, & when the output of the integrator passes a certain
threshold, this triggers some sort of action.

Another relevant control system suppresses interruptions; the general
rule is that only one person is supposed to talk at a time. Something
that often happens after a silence is that several people start talking
at once, and then they all drop out except one, usually the one who
started first. This might be partially explained from the fact that
there's a bit of a lag between deciding to talk and having the first
words actually appear, but it remains to explain exactly why the
`don't interrupt' system has more of an effect on the people who
start in late than the one who starts first. Regardless of the details,
it seems to me that there might be something to discover about how the
control-systems of the individual participants interact to produce
the results.

Well, that's enough for starters.

  Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au

[From Rick Marken (980326.1020)]

Avery Andrews (032698) --

CA [Conversation Analysis] is an approach to the study of language
developed by some sociologists (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson are
maybe the original three big names) interested in interaction;

The only thing that may still endear me to some of the sociologists
on the net is the fact that I took a couple of courses from Sacks
(a couple years before he was killed in a car accident) so I did
quite a bit of CA as an undergraduate at Ucla in the early 60s. I
loved Sacks' class and became quite good at this CA thing. Sacks
himself was quite a piece of work; sort of the Bob Dylan of sociology.
His lectures were like spontaneous poetry sessions; he'd be chain
smoking, pacing and clearly thinking off the top of his head. And
it was great stuff; very much like Dylan: you couldn't really
understand what he was saying but it sounded cool. So I learned
to play Dylan and I learned to play Sacks. I was definitely ready
for the 60s (which actually got started in about 1967;-)).

one pillar of the approach is to record natural interactions &
study them in minute details; experimentation is held to be
unsound

Yes. It seemed a bit strange to me even then. But, hey, I was
just an undergraduate and Sacks already had the rep of being
a genius so I went with it. Basically, you looked at transcipts
of conversations for evidence of things people might be trying to
_achieve_ with their talk. Now I would say that you look for
evidence of what we would call _controlled perceptions_. For
example, you noted in your post that CA provides evidence for "an
extreme intolerance of periods of silence". In PCT terms, the
hypothesis is that people are controlling for something like the
"perceived length of silent periods". The evidence of this would be
that some member of a conversation will say _something_ (even a
non- sequiter) after some length of time.

Another possible controlled perception "discovered" by CA was that
kids seem to control for hearing a "question" before they will
continue a conversation with an adult. Evidence for this controlled
perception was the fact that kids often (always?) say "you know
what?" when they want to tell something to an adult. If the adult
says "what?" the kid continues the conversation; if not, the kid
may keep trying to get the questrion or give up.

The problem with CA, of course, is that it spurns experimentation,
which (when testing for controlled perceptions) would involve active
variation of disturbances to controlled variables. Actually,
CA is based on experimentation to some extent. The approach is
based on observing natural variation in disturbances to hypothetical
controlled variables. This was the case when testing the hypothesis
about kids controlling for hearing a question from an adult before
continuing the conversation; the disturbance was whether or not
the adult actually said "what?" and you could find examples of
both in transcripts and see what happened in each case.

But you can only go so far with natural disturbance variation;
for example, was it "silence" or "no talk" that is controlled?
The only way to tease this is to test these different hypotheses
by seeing which disturbances are and are not resisted. So you
might try filling silent intervals with talk or music or noise
under the hypothesis that it is silence that is controlled. If
there is no response to all these disturbances then maybe it is
"silence". If, however, there is disturbance resistance when the
silence is filled with noise or music then it's not "silence" that
is being controlled; it may be something like "talk". You have
to keep testing until you know several different disturbances that
will be resisted and several that will not.

Also, looking through transcripts for variations in disturbances to
hypothetical controlled variables is a _very_ inefficient way to do
the Test. It seems to me that it would be very simple (and non-
intrusive) to test some of the CA hypotheses about the variables
people are controlling in conversations by just varying your (the
experimenter's) end of the conversation in ways that should and
should not be a disturbance if a particular variable is under
control. So if you had a young kid asking "you know what?" you
could test whether he wants to hear a question by delaying saying
anything or making a statement ("yes, I know what") etc and see
how the kid deals with it.

I do have to hand it to CA for seeing conversation as a purposeful
activity. Sacks et al definitely saw that people were trying to
_achieve particular ends_ by talking. Unfortunately, they didn't
have a theory (PCT) of how this kind of behavior works so they
didn't know about controlled variables, reference states of
controlled variables and independent influences to the states of
controlled variables (disturbances). So they didn't really have the
tools for studying "purposeful conversation". [It's interesting
that Powers' first paper on PCT _was_ actually in print at the
time CA was being born (I took the classes in about 1965; Powers'
first paper on PCT appeared in 1957 (!) and a long version was
in print in 1960 (!)).] Now the tools (PCT) are readily available.
It would be nice if CA people would grab these tools and run with
them but I have a feeling (given people's demonstrated proclivity
to control for having "known it all along") that they might just
say "we know all that already so get out of my face".

I think the controlling done in conversations is very interesting;
it's ubiquitous, unlike tracking tasks; people care about it;
people do it all the time and you don't need fancy equipment to
study it (just a mouth and a tape recorder). I think it would be
great if we could start work on the development a PCT science
of "purposeful conversation". I bet we could use a lot of CA
as a source of hypotheses about the variables controlled in
conversations!

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

[From Bruce Nevin (980326.1934 EST)]

Rick Marken (980326.1020)--

Harvey Sacks as Bob Dylan, I like it.

So if you had a young kid asking "you know what?" you
could test whether he wants to hear a question by delaying saying
anything or making a statement ("yes, I know what") etc and see
how the kid deals with it.

More like the assertion "you want to tell me something,"
or "I want you to tell me what's on your mind."
"Yes, I know what" is clearly a nonresponsive play on the
words of the kid's question.

If it's just "hearing a question" then any old question would
fail to be a disturbance, right? Something like "Did you watch
the Oscars?" should be no disturbance at all.

Here's what I think:

"Guess what?" is one half of a fixed interaction. The other
half sets you up to say, in effect, "I want you to tell me
what's on your mind." That's what "What?" says, in this context.
It's not a question, it's the second half of a conventional
interaction ritual for getting and giving attention.

If this is correct, then anything that communicates "I'm
listening to you and I want you to tell me what's on your mind"
will not be a disturbance, as shown by the kid going on and
telling me what's on her mind.

However, failure to complete the conventional ritual is a
disturbance to the perception of doing the interaction
ritual. Younger kids might go back to "No, guess what?"
Depending on your tone of voice, they might read refusal
to play the game as impatience or the like. Older kids
will probably bobble a bit over the incomplete ritual, but
move on to take your more literal reply at its face value.

Now I'll have to wait for one of my kids to say "guess what?"
to see if my predictions are right. Probably notice some other
things in the process--lots and lots of variables possible here.
Like, if you do this more than once, they come to expect something
irregular from you. (My kids already expect that of me.) So,
gotta get some naive kid to say "Guess what?" Might need a lot
of patience (an presence of mind) for this.

  Bruce Nevin

[Avery Andrews 980327]

(Rick Marken (980326.1020))

The only thing that may still endear me to some of the sociologists
on the net is the fact that I took a couple of courses from Sacks
(a couple years before he was killed in a car accident) so I did
quite a bit of CA as an undergraduate at Ucla in the early 60s. I

cool.

Yes. It seemed a bit strange to me even then. But, hey, I was
just an undergraduate and Sacks already had the rep of being
a genius so I went with it. Basically, you looked at transcipts
of conversations for evidence of things people might be trying to
_achieve_ with their talk. Now I would say that you look for
evidence of what we would call _controlled perceptions_. For
example, you noted in your post that CA provides evidence for "an
extreme intolerance of periods of silence". In PCT terms, the
hypothesis is that people are controlling for something like the
"perceived length of silent periods". The evidence of this would be
that some member of a conversation will say _something_ (even a
non- sequiter) after some length of time.

There's no specific length that's being controlled for, since no
silence at all (latching) is possible, that's why I suggested a
silence integrator.

Another possible controlled perception "discovered" by CA was that
kids seem to control for hearing a "question" before they will
continue a conversation with an adult. Evidence for this controlled
perception was the fact that kids often (always?) say "you know
what?" when they want to tell something to an adult. If the adult
says "what?" the kid continues the conversation; if not, the kid
may keep trying to get the questrion or give up.

My theory of this was that the kids are controlling for a clear channel.
And if something goes wrong with their (often long and involved sentence)
I recall them backing all the way up and restarting with `you know what ...'

The problem with CA, of course, is that it spurns experimentation,
which (when testing for controlled perceptions) would involve active
variation of disturbances to controlled variables. Actually,
CA is based on experimentation to some extent. The approach is
based on observing natural variation in disturbances to hypothetical
controlled variables. This was the case when testing the hypothesis
about kids controlling for hearing a question from an adult before
continuing the conversation; the disturbance was whether or not
the adult actually said "what?" and you could find examples of
both in transcripts and see what happened in each case.

But you can only go so far with natural disturbance variation;
for example, was it "silence" or "no talk" that is controlled?
The only way to tease this is to test these different hypotheses
by seeing which disturbances are and are not resisted. So you
might try filling silent intervals with talk or music or noise
under the hypothesis that it is silence that is controlled.

One could put a Musak system in the hall and see what effect that had.
I think it's obvious that it's `talk' rather than mere
silence that's relevant.

If
there is no response to all these disturbances then maybe it is
"silence". If, however, there is disturbance resistance when the
silence is filled with noise or music then it's not "silence" that
is being controlled; it may be something like "talk". You have
to keep testing until you know several different disturbances that
will be resisted and several that will not.

Also, looking through transcripts for variations in disturbances to
hypothetical controlled variables is a _very_ inefficient way to do
the Test. It seems to me that it would be very simple (and non-
intrusive) to test some of the CA hypotheses about the variables
people are controlling in conversations by just varying your (the
experimenter's) end of the conversation in ways that should and
should not be a disturbance if a particular variable is under
control. So if you had a young kid asking "you know what?" you
could test whether he wants to hear a question by delaying saying
anything or making a statement ("yes, I know what") etc and see
how the kid deals with it.

Yes, but I think there are pretty narrow limits on what you can do
without destroying your social relationships, and I also think that
having the investigation be driven by field-observations rather than
experimental paradigms is extremely important, even if you want to
loosen up a bit and do some experiments too.

I do have to hand it to CA for seeing conversation as a purposeful
activity. Sacks et al definitely saw that people were trying to
_achieve particular ends_ by talking. Unfortunately, they didn't
have a theory (PCT) of how this kind of behavior works so they
didn't know about controlled variables, reference states of
controlled variables and independent influences to the states of
controlled variables (disturbances). So they didn't really have the
tools for studying "purposeful conversation". [It's interesting
that Powers' first paper on PCT _was_ actually in print at the
time CA was being born (I took the classes in about 1965; Powers'
first paper on PCT appeared in 1957 (!) and a long version was
in print in 1960 (!)).] Now the tools (PCT) are readily available.
It would be nice if CA people would grab these tools and run with
them but I have a feeling (given people's demonstrated proclivity
to control for having "known it all along") that they might just
say "we know all that already so get out of my face".

Yes, I think it would take a money-making application, such as
naturally-conversing computer-game characters, to get the attention
of people in the academic establishments.

I think the controlling done in conversations is very interesting;
it's ubiquitous, unlike tracking tasks; people care about it;
people do it all the time and you don't need fancy equipment to
study it (just a mouth and a tape recorder). I think it would be
great if we could start work on the development a PCT science
of "purposeful conversation". I bet we could use a lot of CA
as a source of hypotheses about the variables controlled in
conversations!

It's cool that you already know more about this stuff than I do, I'll
continue to muse about it and post the inconclusive results. I think
the `you know what' phenomenon could use more thought; in general,
people don't want to talk unless they perceive the audience as listening;
my conjecture is that kids are much less skilled & confident at
interpreting the signs, and so ask the question to get explicit
confirmation. But could this be tested somehow?

  - Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au

[From Bruce Nevin (980327.1040 EST)]

Rick Marken (980326.1020)--

So if you had a young kid asking "you know what?" you
could test whether he wants to hear a question by delaying saying
anything or making a statement ("yes, I know what") etc and see
how the kid deals with it.

Avery Andrews 980327--

My theory of this was that the kids are controlling for a clear channel.

We have the same interpretation.

Last night my 10-year-old did one of the variations of "You know what?" and
I overheard my response, a grunt. Worked fine. I suppose it could be heard
as a reduced form of "What?" I didn't have the memory/presence of mind to
try something more clearly out of line for the ritual of demanding and
getting attention. Trouble with spontaneous data is you wind up being
spontaneous.

And if something goes wrong with their (often long and involved sentence)
I recall them backing all the way up and restarting with `you know what ...'

"Oops! I screwed that up. Are you still with me? I'm starting over now, are
you still with me?" (It can be hard for kids to get an adult's attention.)

Bet Penny Sibun would have some interesting comments on this.

  Bruce Nevin

[From Rick Marken (980327.0950)]

Avery Andrews 980327--

My theory of this was that the kids are controlling for a clear
channel.

Bruce Nevin (980327.1040 EST) --

We have the same interpretation.

I would say that you both have the same _hypothesis_ about the
perceptual variable that a kid controls: clarity of channel.
A couple comments. First, I would defer revision of a hypothesis
about a controlled perception (the CA hypothesis is that the
controlled perception is hearing "what?") until the current
hypothesis is ruled out by test. Second, different kids may be
controlling for different perceptions. I doubt that all kids
are controlling for hearing "what?" when they ask "you know what?"
It's important to remember that hypotheses about controlled
perceptions apply to an _individual_, not to a group (like "kids").

Finally, I don't know what perception "clear channel" corresponds
to in my own experience so I would not know how to test to
determine whether or not this perception is under control. I
think it's important to remember that we can only test for
controlled variables if we can perceive these variables ourselves
(in some way). I believe that the words "clear channel" refer
to some aspect of your experience; I just don't know what it is.
A more thorough description of the "clear channel" perception
would be needed before I would know how to test to determine
whether or not this perception is under control.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

[From Bill Powers (980327.1109 MST)]

Rick Marken (980327.0950)--

A couple comments. First, I would defer revision of a hypothesis
about a controlled perception (the CA hypothesis is that the
controlled perception is hearing "what?") until the current
hypothesis is ruled out by test. Second, different kids may be
controlling for different perceptions. I doubt that all kids
are controlling for hearing "what?" when they ask "you know what?"
It's important to remember that hypotheses about controlled
perceptions apply to an _individual_, not to a group (like "kids").

Finally, I don't know what perception "clear channel" corresponds
to in my own experience so I would not know how to test to
determine whether or not this perception is under control. I
think it's important to remember that we can only test for
controlled variables if we can perceive these variables ourselves
(in some way). I believe that the words "clear channel" refer
to some aspect of your experience; I just don't know what it is.
A more thorough description of the "clear channel" perception
would be needed before I would know how to test to determine
whether or not this perception is under control.

Bravo, Rick.

Bill P.

[From Bruce Nevin (980327.1650 EST)]

The hypothesis of CA as reported by Rick (980326.1020) was that the kid is
controlling to hear a question.

Another possible controlled perception "discovered" by CA was that
kids seem to control for hearing a "question" before they will
continue a conversation with an adult. Evidence for this controlled
perception was the fact that kids often (always?) say "you know
what?" when they want to tell something to an adult. If the adult
says "what?" the kid continues the conversation; if not, the kid
may keep trying to get the questrion or give up.

This is easy to test. This is how I imagine such a test might go.

Kid: Guess what?
Other: Is Rick Marken's hypothesis about that question correct?
Kid: Huh?

I have not actually done this. This is only imagination. However, it is
based on memory of non sequiturs when somone said "guess what?". I'll try
to remember to test this when someone says "guess what?" or "you know
what?" or one of the other variants of the opening move. Maybe others could
test this too. Just think, all over the world people will be saying "Guess
what?" and CSGers will be responding "Is Rick Marken's hypothesis about
that question correct?" Then the test results will start rolling in. Awesome.

My hypothesis (980326.1934 EST) was that the kid is controlling a
perception of the communicative relationship "you're listening to what I
have to say" and that the kid is controlling particular conventional means
for attaining that relationship.

The conventional means for attaining the relationship is to control a
perception of completing an interaction ritual that goes like this:

Kid: Guess what?
Other: What.
Kid: <Saying whatever is on her mind.>

If this is correct, something that shows that the other is not listening,
such as a non-sequitur question, will be a disturbance to control of the
higher-level perception. For example, the question "Is Rick Marken's
hypothesis about that question correct?" will be a disturbance.

It could be a disturbance to controlling a perception of completing the
conventional ritual. The kid might resist this disturbance something like so:

Kid: Guess what?
Other: Is Rick Marken's hypothesis about that question correct?
Kid: Huh? No, guess what?

The kid might give up on controlling the perception of completing the
conventional ritual, but still resist the disturbance to higher-level
control of a perception "you're listening to what I have to say" by using
different means in place of the abandoned ritual.

Kid: Guess what?
Other: Is Rick Marken's hypothesis about that question correct?
Kid: Huh? No, listen to me, I want to tell you something.

The kid may give up on controlling the perception "you're listening to what
I have to say."

Kid: Guess what?
Other: Is Rick Marken's hypothesis about that question correct?
Kid: What does that mean?

Kid: Guess what?
Other: Is Rick Marken's hypothesis about that question correct?
Kid: (Turning to someone else) Want to know what?

I have observed all of these alternatives in naturally occurring
situations. I'll bet you have too. I have not formally tested them.

Again, if this hypothesis is correct, anything that shows that the other is
listening to the kid will be OK. It does not have to be a question. Control
of the perception of completing the "guess what?" interaction ritual will
be dropped because it is only means for controlling the higher-level
perception of the communicative relationship.

I observed an example of this last night with my daughter and reported it
(980327.1040 EST).

Rick Marken (980327.0950)

I would defer revision of a hypothesis
about a controlled perception (the CA hypothesis is that the
controlled perception is hearing "what?") until the current
hypothesis is ruled out by test.

See above. Easy to replicate.

I doubt that all kids
are controlling for hearing "what?" when they ask "you know what?"
It's important to remember that hypotheses about controlled
perceptions apply to an _individual_, not to a group (like "kids").

I doubt that any individual kid is controlling a perception of any single
fixed utterance or action as an answer to "Guess what?". The main reason
for my doubt is that the ritual exchange is only means for a higher level
perception "you are listening to what I have to say." (The evidence for
this is what happens when the other answers "what" but then is distracted
and attends to something else. The one who said "guess what?" persists, so
just completing the ritual exchange in itself is not enough until the
person is actually listening to what they have to say. I can remember
instances of this happening.) So since the ritual exchange is only means
for a higher level perception, whatever the other does that the kid
perceives as "you are listening to what I have to say" will appear to an
observer to be sufficient response to "Guess what?" when in fact the kid
just stops controlling a perception of completing the ritual when it has
served its purpose.

I don't know what perception "clear channel" corresponds
to in my own experience so I would not know how to test to
determine whether or not this perception is under control. I
think it's important to remember that we can only test for
controlled variables if we can perceive these variables ourselves
(in some way). I believe that the words "clear channel" refer
to some aspect of your experience; I just don't know what it is.
A more thorough description of the "clear channel" perception
would be needed before I would know how to test to determine
whether or not this perception is under control.

I believe what Avery means by "clear channel" is the same as what I mean by
controlling a perception of the communicative relationship "you're
listening to what I have to say." This is why I said (980327.1040 EST)

We have the same interpretation.

  Bruce Nevin

[Avery.Andrews 980329]

(Rick Marken (980327.0950))

I've been away for the weekend, I'll try to start catching up on the
CA sutff.

Avery Andrews 980327--

> My theory of this was that the kids are controlling for a clear
> channel.

Bruce Nevin (980327.1040 EST) --

> We have the same interpretation.

I would say that you both have the same _hypothesis_ about the
perceptual variable that a kid controls: clarity of channel.

Maybe I'll downgrade my suggestion to a `conjecture'

A couple comments. First, I would defer revision of a hypothesis
about a controlled perception (the CA hypothesis is that the
controlled perception is hearing "what?") until the current
hypothesis is ruled out by test. Second, different kids may be
controlling for different perceptions. I doubt that all kids
are controlling for hearing "what?" when they ask "you know what?"
It's important to remember that hypotheses about controlled
perceptions apply to an _individual_, not to a group (like "kids").

Yes.

Finally, I don't know what perception "clear channel" corresponds
to in my own experience so I would not know how to test to
determine whether or not this perception is under control. I
think it's important to remember that we can only test for
controlled variables if we can perceive these variables ourselves
(in some way). I believe that the words "clear channel" refer
to some aspect of your experience; I just don't know what it is.
A more thorough description of the "clear channel" perception
would be needed before I would know how to test to determine
whether or not this perception is under control.

Right, I think that what I meant by `clear channel' is that the adult is
actually listening. It's clear to me from personal experience that I
often control for somebody listening to what I'm saying; one way to feel
the perception of not being listened to is to be talking to a teenager
who's continuing to paint a model or play a computer-game, for example.
So I'll reformulate my conjecture to say that what the child is controlling
for is the perception of being listened to; this is not intended to be
contradictory to the conjecture/hypothesis that they're controlling for
hearing `what'; the `what' response is part of the evidence that the
adult is listening. I'm not sure how this works in detail, I think it's
part of a general issue of rituals and protocols.

A way to test the idea that the `you know what/what' routine is a method
of acheiving a perception of being listened to might be to reply with
the `what' and then immediately resume reading the paper or some other
activity that strongly suggests that you're not listening.

- Avery Andrews

[Avery Andrews 980329.0932 Eastern Oz Time]

(Bruce Nevin (980327.1650 EST))

The hypothesis of CA as reported by Rick (980326.1020) was that the kid is
controlling to hear a question.

...

I see that Bruce is thinking along pretty much the same lines as I am,
but in greater detail, at this point.

- Avery Andrews